In the two years since its establishment, the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People's Court has given full play to the advantages of the system and continuously strengthened the trial of technical intellectual property rights.
Three cases of "anti-suit injunction" for wireless communication standard essential patents
[Case No.] (2019) Supreme People’sCourt Zhi Min Zhong No. 732, 733, 734
[Case Basics]
In January 2018, Huawei filed this case with the Nanjing Intermediate People's Court, requesting confirmation that it did not infringe Conversant's three Chinese patent rights and requesting confirmation of the license fee rate for standard essential patents in China.
In April 2018, in order to counteract Huawei’s lawsuit in this case, Conversant filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the court of Düsseldorf, Germany, requesting an order for Huawei to stop the infringement and compensate for the losses. On September 16, 2019, the Nanjing Intermediate People's Court made the first-instance judgment of this case, which determined the license fee rate for the standard essential patents involved in Huawei, its Chinese affiliates, and Conversant. Conversant refused to accept the judgment of the first instance and appealed to the Supreme People's Court.
During the trial of the Supreme People’s Court, on August 27, 2020, the German court made a first-instance verdict that Huawei and its German affiliates infringed Conversant’s European patents and ordered Huawei and its German affiliates to provide, sell, and use, and import or hold related mobile terminals for the above-mentioned purposes, destroy and recall infringing products, etc. The judgment can be temporarily enforced after Conversant provides a guarantee of 2.4 million euros.
On the same day, Huawei filed an application for behavior preservation to the Supreme People's Court, requesting that Conversant Company be prohibited from applying for enforcement of the German court's judgment before the Supreme People's Court makes its final judgment. The Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People's Court comprehensively considers factors such as necessity, the balance of profit and loss, and the principle of international comity, and makes a behavior preservation ruling within 48 hours: Conversant Company shall not apply for the execution of the above-mentioned German judgment before the final judgment of the Supreme People's Court; if this ruling is violated, from the date of violation, a daily fine of RMB 1 million shall be imposed, which shall be accumulated on a daily basis.
Conversant Company filed a reconsideration, and the Supreme People's Court organized a hearing for both parties and ruled to reject the request for reply. After the ruling in this case was made, the parties concerned fully respected and implemented the ruling in this case while conducting active commercial negotiations, reached a global settlement agreement, ended all parallel litigation in multiple countries around the world, and achieved good legal impacts and multi-win social effects.
[Typical Significance]
In these three cases, the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court of China made the first "anti-suit injunction" behavior preservation ruling of a Chinese court in the field of intellectual property rights, and pioneered the application of "daily fines" measures to ensure Enforcement of Behavior Preservation rulings. The rulings of the three cases clarified the applicable conditions and considerations for the preservation of acts of the nature of the "anti-suit injunction", and made case studies for the establishment and improvement of China's "anti-suit injunction" system, accumulated useful experience, and effectively safeguarded national interests, judicial sovereignty, and the legal rights and interests of the enterprise.
